Tim Cook wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Until/unless someone finds a valid means to separate measures of 
>> mental development from the social memes and mores of the culture they 
>> are being tested in, its not a valid test of anything, other than 
>> general forms of conformity to arbitrary definitions of "intelligence".
> 
> IQ tests do include sections such as repeating ever-lengthening strings 
> of numbers which is pretty unrelated to conforming to social norms and 
> measures nothing but short-term memory capacity, a bit like playing 
> Simon.  And sections with pattern-based problem-solving with no 
> additional data.  At some point, *all* definitions are arbitrary, and if 
> (assuming that "if", there) the measures of mental development are used 
> entirely within the culture of which the subject is a member, why does 
> it need to be separated?
> 
> -- 
> Tim Cook
> http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
Yeah. Seen those. I almost always consistently fail at them. lol Problem 
with those is that they are the *same* issue. If you know the *correct* 
solutions, fine, you use them, and its simple. If you don't, then your 
smart, thinking, mind, tries to work out the solution, and even can't 
figure it out, since you don't hit on the one *correct* method, or you 
come up with some solution that seems to work, but is actually *wrong*. 
Such tests are not capable of deciphering *why*, or *how* you concluded 
that you had a valid solution, so can't accurately determine if it was 
because you a)failed to guess the right one, b) didn't learn to see that 
*common* solution, for that common problem, or c) over thought the 
problem. All it can say is, "you got it, or you failed to get it". That 
is, less than worthless. Least favorite is some twit telling me, "Oh, 
well, that is just the Fibonacci sequence... Well, great, if I used the 
it for anything, I might remember what that was. But, a) I don't, and b) 
someone that has no clue what the sequence looks like in the first place 
isn't stupid, they just don't know what the sequence is, so can't figure 
it out.

But, yeah. To some extent you are correct. The problem is, imho, the 
*valid* parts of that test shouldn't be all that useful for anyone over 
the age of 9, and even then, it doesn't say why the person isn't 
advanced to that point, whether or not its innate, or fixable, nor 
whether they will, by age 11, manage to overcome the gap, and render the 
test worthless, if you see what I mean. And, most importantly, none of 
it tells you if they can really think things through critically enough 
that they won't be basing their policies are 45 on their daily 
horoscope, visits to a guru, or conversations with an imaginary friend, 
or that they will actually understand even the "general" concepts of 
most things well enough to not end up believing the exact opposite of 
what the evidence points to, instead of respecting the opinions of 
people that have made it their life's work to have a bloody clue what 
they are talking about.

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Tim Cook wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>>   That's precisely the PC-ideology speaking: "It's not a valid test of
>> *anything*". That's BS. Of course it's a valid test of *something*, and
>> more precisely, something related to people's brains. You might not like
>> the implications, but that doesn't change the fact. Simply wishing the
>> tests were completely irrelevant doesn't make it so.
> 
> I think the argument goes something like "there are exceptions that 
> prevent using this xyz as a convenient, over-generalised measure to 
> which we can refer without having to actually think about it (read: use 
> in sensationalistic news stories), THEREFORE it must be incorrect in 
> EVERY case!".
> 
> Yes, an IQ test is not perfect, nor do we fully understand every 
> intricate detail of how the brain works or all the qualitative factors 
> of 'intelligence'.  This doesn't mean we should look the other way 
> instead of using the most efficient tool for getting a reasonably 
> accurate comparison of individuals, so those who genuinely need 
> assistance due to mental disability can get it.
> 
> -- 
> Tim Cook
> http://empyrean.freesitespace.net
No, it means we need to use it for what it is useful for, and not 
exaggerate that, and when we find a disparity in development, we figure 
out *why*, not just pigeon hole the person in the "they are genius", or 
"they are special ed", category. This isn't what happens though.

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> No, it means we need to use it for what it is useful for, and not 
> exaggerate that, and when we find a disparity in development, we figure 
> out *why*, not just pigeon hole the person in the "they are genius", or 
> "they are special ed", category. This isn't what happens though.

Point, but <whine>that costs money!</whine>

*Taxpayer* money, most often, being the sticking point there.

Plus you need a whole gaggle of qualified people for each individual 
case, at this point in our knowledge of "why" brain things happen, to 
get a decent understanding of how to not just stuff them in a proverbial 
little box.  And nobody wants to pay for that.

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle wrote:
> Aside from a handful of people who think that our federal government is 
> always up to something evil, no matter who is in office, a small number 
> of people were afflicted with Bush Derangement Syndrome to such a degree 
> that they believe him capable of anything evil.  In all fairness, 
> conspiracy theories about Clinton abounded during his time in office as 
> well.

Never plead malice where incompetence will do.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Uh, no. Living here, I can guarantee you there's frequent "defeat obama 
> even at the cost of the rest of america" going on pretty frequently.

I don't see why.  In my opinion, the Beer Summit was one of the smartest 
things I've ever heard of a President doing.

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Sounds good, but.. Well, frankly, as I said, in this case I was in a 
> rush to go out the door. If I took that sort of time, I wouldn't have 
> made it to work on time, or would have had to come back later, and hope 
> the power didn't go out, etc., losing the message. :p And, just because 
> I don't stutter any more, doesn't mean I don't think, never mind type, 
> the same as I used to. lol

That's why I had to give up checking this group before work ;)

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:

> Uh, no. Living here, I can guarantee you there's frequent "defeat obama 
> even at the cost of the rest of america" going on pretty frequently.

Actually, they say "Defeat Obama for the good of America."  They do 
honestly believe that Obama's policies will do far more harm than good. 
  The anti-Bush people said the same about Bush and his policies, as well.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Bush's understanding seemed to be limited to right wing Bible, war 
> heroes from old movie plots, and big business. Everything else, he was 
> clueless about.

I still have not seen anything like unto real evidence that Bush was 
either stupider or more ignorant than anyone alleging either stupidity 
or ignorance on his part.  I do, however, see a boatload of 
Monday-morning quarterbacking.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 14:24:46 -0700, Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom>
wrote:

>Another good one from the same channel:
>
>http://www.colbertnation.com/home

Thanks.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 31-7-2009 16:04, Stephen wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 06:12:40 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> 
>> I believe you, it is just that we here don't see that as often (i.e. 
>> almost not at all). Perhaps because things like the above do not make 
>> sense if you publish them in a Dutch newspaper, other than 'those silly 
>> americans', and what is the news value of that?
> 
> I've recently found Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" on British TV.
> Very funny and it gives me a lot more respect for Americans. (Well some of them,
> anyway :) )

Over the last few years the daily show seems to have gotten a reputation 
of being the only unbiased source of information during elections. All 
other general broadcast companies are either too tightly bound to one 
political party or too busy avoiding law suits and/or loss of audience 
to have an political opinion. One of the reasons for the sharp divide in 
the US is that most people only watch a certain number of channels. 
Which shape their political points of view which in turn makes watching 
a channel with a different opinion impossible. In a way some channels 
are using politics to bind the audience.

Post a reply to this message